False MPG Figures: Sun Article

[Matthewr1990]

So this was in today's Sun newspaper about manufacturers having their MPG figures exaggerated. (Click the image to see full version and read article)



FIAT seem to be high on the list twice. 1st and 3rd. (Panda and 500). What are people's thoughts on this article?

I personally never believe the MPG figures but didn't think they'd be that far out.

 

[scout]

My twinair lounge 500 does much better than the papers figures, but not as good as Fiats. I think maybe the paper is exaggerating the other way to make the story more 'newsworthy'.

 

[Ziggy122]

it is sometimes possible to get the manufacture results

But things like having a fully charged battery and it been preheated, nothing but bare essentials been on make the difference

plus in labs they get the wind tunnel on a rolling road, not running on the road actually powering through the wind


I'd never say i'd get the 51mpg my punto should get
My fuelly agree's with me, getting around only 25 - 35mpg

Ziggy

 

[StevenRB45]

I've managed to match the claimed in mpg in both the suzuki and mazda. Suzuki in day to day use was about 10% down. Mazda is about 10% down so far but suspect this will increase to about 15% in winter as last tank was 38mpg. Citroën diesel marketed as cheap to run..that scrapes 30+ down and has never matched claimed figures.

Don't know anyone who gets the figures all the time only ever on the odd long run on none eco cars. Any eco cars the figures are generally pulled out of hat for marketing purposes.

 

[panda panda]

I'm very concerned as I have just placed an order for the worst offender - the twinair trekking!

If it doesn't average high forties/low fifties on a run I will be disappointed, I don't expect the claimed MPG but I don't expect a .9 engine to be thirstier than the 1.2 it's replacing!

 

[scout]

I'm very concerned as I have just placed an order for the worst offender - the twinair trekking!

If it doesn't average high forties/low fifties on a run I will be disappointed, I don't expect the claimed MPG but I don't expect a .9 engine to be thirstier than the 1.2 it's replacing!

Depends how you drive it. On a run with a 5 speed box I can average 56 mpg in the 500C. I would think with a 6 speed box you should get at least that unless you've got a lead foot and want to go everywhere at 90mph.

 

[StevenRB45]

I'm very concerned as I have just placed an order for the worst offender - the twinair trekking!

If it doesn't average high forties/low fifties on a run I will be disappointed, I don't expect the claimed MPG but I don't expect a .9 engine to be thirstier than the 1.2 it's replacing!

The twinair is very driving style dependent, looking at people in the 500 section and 500l, you can have speed or power not both and if you drive gently you mighy get within 20 mpg of the quoted figure.

 

[Ziggy122]

A small engine working harder vs a larger engine working slower

It just depends how its driven

As i'd probably be better off with a larger engine as i do tend to drive harder

Ziggy

 

[scout]

The twinair is very driving style dependent, looking at people in the 500 section and 500l, you can have speed or power not both and if you drive gently you might get within 20 mpg of the quoted figure.

No one will accuse me of not being an 'enthusiastic' driver but I stand by the figures quoted above (56mph on a run) and I'll get mid 40's mixed driving. I can get it much lower if I try but it's not necessary to have fun.

 

[Paddynabs]

I actually do better than the claimed figures for my Multipla. But since I've had it I drive like an old man. My commute is all dual carridgeway and I leave it at 65mph. This make a huge difference. The past few weeks I've been using a roof rack and driving faster than usual. Interested to see what I got out of the last tank full!

 

[StevenRB45]

The multipla comes from a time before lying outrageously about your mpg figures was the done thing.

 

[dragonwagon]

First of all, the official claimed figures are achieved under carefully controlled, infinitely repeatable laboratory conditions on a rolling road using a preset driving program, possibly run by a computer / robot or a very highly trained individual. This does not take into account any variations in windspeed, gradient, rolling resistance of the road surface and a multitude of other variables one encounters on the open road, let alone variances in driving style. In my opinion the official figures are nothing more than a guide to compare cars and bear no resemblance to reality. Anyone thinking that these are figures that can be attained by anyone is deluded. Get a grip folks.

 

[Matthewr1990]

First of all, the official claimed figures are achieved under carefully controlled, infinitely repeatable laboratory conditions on a rolling road using a preset driving program, possibly run by a computer / robot or a very highly trained individual. This does not take into account any variations in windspeed, gradient, rolling resistance of the road surface and a multitude of other variables one encounters on the open road, let alone variances in driving style. In my opinion the official figures are nothing more than a guide to compare cars and bear no resemblance to reality. Anyone thinking that these are figures that can be attained by anyone is deluded. Get a grip folks.

Woah there compadre. There is no loss of grip from anyone. Just friendly discussion about MPG figures compared to what is stated, it was brought up in a national tabloid remember.
Drivers aren't silly people. We know you're not going to get 60 MPG in stop start traffic through Dudley. For example my Bravo is stated as 40 something combined. When I do my short town driving in the week I barely get 27 (though it improves for my longer journeys At the weekend). Which is to be understood. The figures in the article however, are a bit of a shock. Also the fact 2 FIAT's are 1st and 3rd doesn't help FIAT's reputation. Hence we arrive at said discussion.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Personally I think they should go back to how they were done for the Classic Panda.

3 real world MPG figures;

MPG at a steady 30MPH for X distance
MPG at a steady 56MPH (supposedly the sweet spot) for X distance
MPG at a steady 70MPG for X distance

Are more accurate, and figures I've normally smashed

 

[Matthewr1990]

Personally I think they should go back to how they were done for the Classic Panda.

3 real world MPG figures;

MPG at a steady 30MPH for X distance
MPG at a steady 56MPH (supposedly the sweet spot) for X distance
MPG at a steady 70MPG for X distance

Are more accurate, and figures I've normally smashed

Doesn't count for stop shart traffic that 90% of 9-5 drivers will encounter. And no matter how much stop/start technology they put in you're still going to be using extra fuel to start and accelerate the car up to town speeds to then drop to nothing again.

 

[gijohn2]

My bravo manages an average of 30-33mpg but on instant consumption on motorways (100mile trip to and from work) I get anything from 20-65mpg depending how hard I accelerate. But 6 gears makes all the difference

 

[StevenRB45]

No one will accuse me of not being an 'enthusiastic' driver but I stand by the figures quoted above (56mph on a run) and I'll get mid 40's mixed driving. I can get it much lower if I try but it's not necessary to have fun.

Fair enough, but they are still the best part of 20 mpg off the claimed figures. They aren't bad, although the Mrs citroen gets 51mpg round the doors with no thought to economy and ac on, and 61mpg at 70mph so not exactly impressive either. However the citroen is meant to get 60mpg urban and about 80 on a run so their pants are on fire as well.

 

[scout]

Fair enough, but they are still the best part of 20 mpg off the claimed figures. They aren't bad, although the Mrs citroen gets 51mpg round the doors with no thought to economy and ac on, and 61mpg at 70mph so not exactly impressive either. However the citroen is meant to get 60mpg urban and about 80 on a run so their pants are on fire as well.

Totally agree, the figures I get are rubbish compared to Fiats figures but I went in with my eyes open and am getting better than I expected, also I came from a car returning 17mpg average so the figures I'm getting are fantastic compared to that

I think all the manufacturers should be more honest with their figures, because there are people that are gullible enough to believe them and be sorely disappointed when they find out the truth.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Doesn't count for stop shart traffic that 90% of 9-5 drivers will encounter. And no matter how much stop/start technology they put in you're still going to be using extra fuel to start and accelerate the car up to town speeds to then drop to nothing again.

True, but most (or is it just me ) want to see the best MPG possible.

Funny enough just done 160 miles to Sussex this evening, East Anglia to Central London doing what most Prius seem to be seen doing in the outside lane of the motorway :devil: then 2-3 hours stop start in and through central London, out the other side and down the M23 at 60mph on the cruise control, and I still returned an indicated 73mpg in total (about 65-67 I suspect on brim to brim).

Still shy of the 134.5MPGe acclaimed, but I ignore that seeings as this was all done in hybrid mode without plugging in

This way on arriving in central London

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Look what I've just stumbled across by chance - proper MPG figures from a Metro ad.

Damn can't rotate on my phone - turn your monitors haha